Grim news as La Stampa reports that Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor is a close adviser of Pope Francis

La Stampa is reporting the grim news that Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor is a close adviser of Pope Francis, confirming something that Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor said in his recent interview with The Catholic Herald when he boasted that Pope Francis greeted him after his election by saying jokingly, ‘It’s all your fault’.

‘Then there is the over 80-year-old British cardinal Murphy O’Connor, who plays less of a centre-stage role. He certainly did not see eye to eye with Benedict XVI when it came to bishop-related issues but under Francis’ pontificate he seems to have gained in importance and Francis consults him often. The Nuncio to Great Britain seems to be conscious of this “hotline” to the Pope and the two apparently speak more regularly than before.’

Why is this grim news for the faithful and loyal Catholics of England and Wales? What kind of advice will Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor be giving to Pope Francis?

Bishop Davies appointment has certainly delighted conservatives; he recently handed the running of a parish to a traditionalist group, who exclusively celebrate the old rite. It would appear that Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor was absent when the congregation settled on Bishop Davies for Shrewsbury. “That’ll teach me to miss the plane”, he is said to have quipped.”

The Tablet explains the Cardinal’s attitude towards Bishop Mark Davies, who has courageously spoken out against gay marriage and the persecution of UK Christians, as stemming from his belief that ‘bishops will be more effective if they are diplomatic sorts rather than “cultural warriors”.

Cardinal Murphy O’Connor required the entire orthodox board of Ss John & Elizabeth Hospital to resign in favour of his own candidates General Lord Charles Guthrie as Chairman and Sir Mark Allen (yes he of the Libyan renditions connection) to chair the ethics committee. The Code of Ethics was eviscerated at the request of the non-Catholic doctors at the Hospital and in particular the ban on referrals for abortion was removed. They were not going to allow a row over a few condoms to spoil the financial success of the Hospital.

Lord Guthrie and Sir Mark Allen went to Rome and came back saying Rome had approved. Cardinal Cormac gave the new code his blessing. However Rome had in no way approved and indeed had told them that this was a principle for which people should be prepared to go to the stake to defend, which apparently somewhat puzzled the General and Sir Mark as they mentioned to the British Ambassador. Rome was informed of their claims and subsequently the ban on referrals was put back. Whether anything in the Code is actually followed is a matter of speculation. Complete secularisation is anticipated; the Anscombe Bioethics Centre and the Catholic Medical Association were forced to leave the premises. The future involvement of the Order in Malta is now in some doubt.

When asked about the use of condoms in Africa to protect against HIV infection and death, the cardinal responded: “First, I’d say that it’s right for the church to preach chastity, that sexual intercourse is for within marriage. But God knows, people just do not live up to ideals. While we can say that, objectively, the use of condoms is wrong, there are places where it might be licit, or allowable, as when there’s a danger of intercourse leading to death. It would be wrong to take a special case and make it a universal law. There is such a thing as objective morality, where things are either right or wrong; but there are also subjective matters that affect whether a thing is slightly wrong or not wrong at all. That’s what we’re talking about in this case. So I would agree with Cardinal Danneels’s position.”

Compare Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor’s words on condoms with Pope Benedict’s in his interview ‘Light of the World’:

Mr Seewald asks the Pope about his statement on the way to Africa in March 2009 that condoms were not the solution to the Aids crisis.

‘Pope Benedict replies: “Someone had asked me why the Catholic Church adopts an unrealistic and ineffective position on Aids.

“At that point, I really felt that I was being provoked, because the Church does more than anyone else. And I stand by that claim. Because she is the only institution that assists people up close and concretely, with prevention, education, help, counsel, and accompaniment. And because she is second to none in treating so many Aids victims, especially children with Aids.

He continued: ”In my remarks I was not making a general statement about the condom issue, but merely said, and this is what caused such great offense, that we cannot solve the problem by distributing condoms. Much more needs to be done. We must stand close to the people, we must guide and help them; and we must do this both before and after they contract the disease.

“As a matter of fact, you know, people can get condoms when they want them anyway. But this just goes to show that condoms alone do not resolve the question itself. More needs to happen.

“Meanwhile, the secular realm itself has developed the so-called ABC Theory: Abstinence-Be Faithful-Condom, where the condom is understood only as a last resort, when the other two points fail to work. This means that the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalisation of sexuality, which, after all, is precisely the dangerous source of the attitude of no longer seeing sexuality as the expression of love, but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves.

“This is why the fight against the banalisation of sexuality is also a part of the struggle to ensure that sexuality is treated as a positive value and to enable it to have a positive effect on the whole of man’s being.”

He added: “There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralisation, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanisation of sexuality.”

Mr Seewald then asks the Pope whether he is saying that the Church is not opposed in principle to condoms.

The Pope answers: “She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.”

Protect the Pope comment: If La Stampa’s report is correct then as faithful and loyal Catholics we had better steel ourselves for a series of decisions about bishops and other vital areas of the life of the church that will entrench the dominance of the liberal dissenters that we’ve lived under for the past 40 years. This is the irony of the times in which we live, dissenters like The Tablet and A Call to Action are reacting as if they have been freed from a Babylonian Captivity when their world-view has dominated the Church in England and Wales. And it looks like we’re going to be subjected to more of the Magic Circle.

http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/francesco-francis-francisco-28744/

Who knows? I’m still waiting to see what happens. Hard to say which news sources can be trusted.

So true. So many "news sources" have their own agendas.
My money is on orthodoxy, that is, nothing changes.
Wait and see?
I might be wrong, but I don't think so. I've been around too long and NOTHING has changed from the orthodoxy.

“My money is on orthodoxy, that is, nothing changes.”

Have you been around long enough to notice the introduction of Communion in the Hand or altar girls? Have you noticed Ascension Thursday now being celebrated on a Sunday? I’ll bet my money against your money any day.

I understand what you are saying and had these similar questions.

The answer I got was the difference between dogma and tradition. And the difference between traditions were germane to what Jesus did.
The example we got was: Jesus didn't appoint 72 disciples, half women and half men. All the disciples he appointed were men, after the Judaic tradition of men-only priests.

Communion in the hand (I STILL don't do that and present my mouth to the priest.) and altar girls are two practices that haven't much root in the Judaic/Christian traditions, I guess. Altar boys, girls, men, women are just helpers.
We women also get to GIVE communion, both body and blood. I guess that whole thing wasn't rooted in any hard and fast tradition.

The Orthodox Jews maintain the men-only rabbis, I understand. The "reform" Jews don't.

Ascension Thursday was a choice made by the Catholic Church a long time ago, a tradition. I guess it's not ESSENTIAL to the celebration to insist that it be on a Thursday. I think the new practice stinks, but then I attend Mass daily, so it doesn't matter to me. Daily Mass, a practice I developed in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, believe it or not. I've been doing it for over 25 years. :o) God REALLY, REALLY, REALLY works in mysterious ways.

“Ascension Thursday was a choice made by the Catholic Church a long time ago, a tradition.”

Ascension Thursday was no more a choice of the Catholic Church than Good Friday or Easter Sunday was. Jesus ascended to Heaven on a Thursday, forty days after His Resurrection.

Ascension Thursday was no more a choice of the Catholic Church than Good Friday or Easter Sunday was. Jesus ascended to Heaven on a Thursday, forty days after His Resurrection.

Understood. Of course, that is the way it was.
However, the Church decided to make it a holy day of OBLIGATION. They can un-decide it too. They have the authority given to them by HIM.

The Church had eating meat on Friday as a sin. They have undone that. Lent used to be FAR more rigorous than it is now. They DO have the authority to bind/loose, don't they?

In my old age I've become very orthodox in my Catholic practices. I sure don't/can't expect others to be the same. That's not my call.

“They can un-decide it too. They have the authority given to them by HIM.”

“The Church had eating meat on Friday as a sin. They have undone that. Lent used to be FAR more rigorous than it is now. They DO have the authority to bind/loose, don’t they?”

In your above statements, you refer to the Catholic Church five times as “they”. I think you may have a misunderstanding of the what the Catholic Church is.

This sounds bad.

Another bishop who reportedly is a trusted pal of the Pope is Cardinal Sean O’Malley of Boston, who slobbered over the Kennedys and Obama at the scandalous canonization/funeral of Ted Kennedy—who, according to O’Malley, “didn’t do as much as he could have” to oppose abortion.

The Pope, so far, appears to be comfortable palling around with proven dissidents and idiots.

The issue isn’t whether the Pope is going to start teaching heresy. The issue is Will he appoint bishops who will teach heresy? The indications (who he seems to be most comfortable around) are that he will. Will he appoint bishops who will tolerate priests and nuns who will teach heresy? Absolutely.

Communion in the hand was one of many changes to the liturgy to make it more appealing to non-Catholics.

Meanwhile, communion in the hand was condemned for hundreds of years.

Nope nothing’s changed folks. Nothing to see here.

Communion in the hand was one of many changes to the liturgy to make it more appealing to non-Catholics.

Meanwhile, communion in the hand was condemned for hundreds of years.

Jesus didn't stuff any bread into anyone's mouth...

I would guess that the intent of the current procedure is to have the bread be a little too holy to put into the average person's hand; must only be handled by clergy...

When I was 12 my mom had to take Catholic instruction to sing in their church choir. I took the course too. Loved it. Text was “Father Smith Instructs Jackson”, which I still have and occasionally refer to.

But I’m glad that I didn’t convert. And doubtless there are those Catholics that would be glad I didn’t either.

Your response only helps to prove my point. Non-Catholics disagree (and that’s putting it mildly) with communion on the tongue. Therefore, to make the liturgy more appealing to them, CITH was allowed.

I’m not here to argue COTT/CITH with a protestant though.

I think it was Jesus who allowed communion in the hand...

I’m not here to argue COTT/CITH with a protestant though.

The argument's not with a Protestant...The argument is with the bible...

It's really the bishops who do the daily running of things, isn't it? I haven't noticed too much that what the pope or bishops do has too much effect on my life.

In your above statements, you refer to the Catholic Church five times as “they”. I think you may have a misunderstanding of the what the Catholic Church is.

"They" is just a way of writing--probably not the best way.

I may have a misunderstanding of the Catholic Church? Maybe I do. I've been going to Mass on Sundays and holy days since I was a girl and daily Mass for the last 35 years. Perhaps I WASN'T listening to any of the sermons. You may be right.

Communion in the hand was one of many changes to the liturgy to make it more appealing to non-Catholics.
Meanwhile, communion in the hand was condemned for hundreds of years.
Nope nothing’s changed folks. Nothing to see here.

I keep receiving communion with my tongue, usually.
I DO take it with my hands when the Eucharistic minister who's giving it out is someone I don't like. Ah me.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.